Police chief: Test applicants with polygraph to weed out problems

by
Maxine Bernstein, The Oregonian

Monday June 22, 2009, 7:34 PM

Portland Police Chief Rosie Sizer on Monday pushed for the ability to give polygraph tests to police applicants as a grand jury returned an 84-count indictment against a Portland officer accused of placing sexually-harassing calls to women and teenage girls.

Portland Officer Joseph E. Wild, a four-year member of the Portland Police Bureau, is scheduled to be arraigned on the indictment Tuesday in Multnomah County Circuit Court.

He's accused of repeatedly making sexually-explicit phone calls to eight different females, including his 14-year-old sister-in-law, between November 2008 and April 2009. During some calls, he threatened to rape the women, or told them he wanted to see them naked, according to court documents.

Wild
Will be arraigned in Multnomah County Circuit Court on Tuesday

Even after Portland detectives began a criminal investigation, Wild used his bureau-issued police cell phone to make more than 50 calls to his teenage relative between Feb. 24 and April 23, calls the 14-year-old told investigators made her extremely frightened and made her cry, according to court records.

Three newly-hired women Portland police officers, a 16-year-old intoxicated girl whom Wild had picked up on a police call and driven to a youth center for missing juveniles, and a woman who had placed a call to report domestic violence were among those who reported receiving sexually-harassing and threatening calls traced to Wild's cell phone, according to police and court documents.

The indictment accuses Wild, 28, of 49 counts of first-degree official misconduct, 34 counts of telephonic harassment and one count of menacing. All the charges are misdemeanors. He's being held on $250,000 bond.

"The organization is both embarrassed and feels betrayed by the allegations as they have surfaced," Sizer said.

Wild's lawyer, Spencer Hahn, declined comment.

Noting that this is not the first officer tied to sexual misconduct, Sizer said the bureau has been working closely with police psychologist David Corey to better screen applicants. Corey has been working since 2007 to strengthen a personal questionnaire given to all applicants, intending to identify any deviate sexual traits that could foretell problems. To try to glean any predictors, he's also interviewed officers from multiple agencies who engaged in sexual misconduct after they were hired.

The polygraph would be another tool to help, but needs approval by state lawmakers, Sizer said. Bills haven't gotten far in the past two Legislatures. This session, the bill didn't get a hearing.

"In my mind, the Legislature lacks trust in police administrators to use the tool fairly," Sizer said. "We need the best information about candidates to make the best hiring decision."

The Wild case began Feb. 2 when three women police cadets at the state police academy reported receiving harassing phone calls. The Oregon State Police got the report and began investigating. Portland police soon confirmed the calls were made from a Portland officer's bureau-issued cell phone. Portland police received the case file from state police by March 27, and took over the investigation.

Separately, a Portland sex assault unit detective took a report in late March from a 16-year-old girl who told police she received phone calls from a man she didn't know, who claimed he had sex with her on March 24.

"We really had two investigations going on simultaneously, but they did not know they were connected," Detective Division Lt. Bob Day said.

On May 4, Portland detectives interviewed Wild at North Precinct, where he worked the night shift, regarding the initial telephone harassment complaints from the police officers. He admitted to placing the sexually explicit calls and to ignoring requests to stop. That day, Wild was placed on paid leave as the inquiry continued.

The next day, Portland sex assault detectives realized that the March call made to the 16-year-old girl who had filed a complaint also had come from Wild's cell phone. A subsequent inquiry determined there had been no sexual assault.

Police then decided to review six months of Wild's cell phone records, and located other alleged victims. Most of them, including the 14-year-old relative, didn't report the calls to police.

Police paid Wild overtime to get him to come to work on June 12, his usual day off, to arrest him, the chief said. An internal police disciplinary investigation has been launched as the criminal case proceeds.

Court records show Wild is married and was living in Northeast Portland. A prosecutor's motion to have his bail set at $250,000 was sealed pending the ongoing investigation, but, a pre-trial release officer wrote that he should be held "due to danger to community."

Conceptually I like this idea. Let's have all currently employed police undergo lie detector tests annually, answering questions related to honesty and equal application of laws while on duty. Those that fail could then be waterboarded until they admit their transgressions.

A polygraph is not a very good idea. The courts have held repeatedly that they are at best, unreliable. Unreliable cuts both ways. A potentially great officer could be eliminated just as easily as a potentially bad one.

To rely upon unreliable pseudo-science is a fools errand. Perhaps the interview process needs to be looked at. Let the interviewer do their job.

Where a true lie detector test would be a good idea, fact is, they don't exist yet. Even polygraph examiners will tell you psychopaths routinely pass them. I wonder what other clues or patterns this POS showed that weren't acted upon by police brass. I could see if Rosie was saying this guy was the most perfect cop and a thorough background check revealed nothing that would have led us to beleive he would be like this. The fact that she isn't, makes me suspect they ignored something. This is a typical smoke screen maneuver on her part.

The title of this report attributes to Chief Sizer an intention that the report does not support. "Weed out" implies that the Police Chief stated an intention to rely on polygraph test results to exclude candidates from further consideration.

I don't find any direct quotations in the story to support the implication. The story attributes directly, or by paraphrase, the opinions that motivate Chief Sizer's request:

The polygraph would be another tool to help

the Legislature lacks trust in police administrators to use the tool fairly

We need the best information about candidates to make the best hiring decision

The report implies that Chief Sizer thinks polygraph test results are among the sources of "best information . . . to make the best hiring descision."

I'm giving the Chief the benefit of the doubt here. Surely her career in law enforcement has exposed her time and again to the debate over the admissability of polygraph test results as evidence; surely she knows it's not in her own best interest to promote them as reliable hiring criteria.

I suspect that Chief Sizer thinks polygraph tests will help the efforts of police psychologist David Corey that are reported in the preceding paragraphs: the refinement of the screening questionnaire, and the discovery or further characterization of behavioral predictors.

So I understand that we the public want to know what's going on with this case - my question though is how much information is too much? After reading this post I cant help but have one lingering thought-naming Officer Wild's 14 yr old sister in law as a victim has basically given her identity away. Where is her privacy??? She now has to face her friends and extended family and most likely feel victimized yet again by this monster! Not only has she been through enough, but so has the rest of Mr Wild's in laws that are also victims.

Posted by sjl4540 on 06/22/09 at 8:28PM
"A polygraph is not a very good idea. The courts have held repeatedly that they are at best, unreliable. Unreliable cuts both ways. A potentially great officer could be eliminated just as easily as a potentially bad one. To rely upon unreliable pseudo-science is a fools errand. Perhaps the interview process needs to be looked at. Let the interviewer do their job."

I bet you wouldn't use the same logic for a sex-offender on parole, sjl4540. Doesn't surprise me since your hypocrisy shines through in about 90% of your posts.

When a person's integrity and honesty is being challenged and they genuinely have nothing to hide, what's the first thing a truly innocent person does? Offer to take a polygraph. Police certainly have NO problem requiring citizens to take polygraphs to determine their culpability, so as shining beacons of upright standards and supreme moral rectitude, why should they have a problem submitting to one themselves?

"... naming Officer Wild's 14 yr old sister in law as a victim has basically given her identity away. Where is her privacy."

Nice catch!

The potentially misleading title is not nearly as egregious as the author's or the editor's violation of the spirit of the Oregonian's editorial policy which is intended as a protection of privacy.

The story complies with that policy by not the publishing the name of a minor who is a crime victim. But I wouldn't be surprised if she gets 50 more harrassing phone calls in the next 24 hours - from journalists - prompted by this report.

So here's my lingering thought: I wonder if the policy extends to a prohibition against publishing the name of a minor who is the plaintiff in a civil claim for damages?

Although your post shows that you lack a room temperature IQ I would love to hear what

"equal application of laws while on duty"

means?

doob,

"Police certainly have NO problem requiring citizens to take polygraphs to determine their culpability."

Obviously you are from the same cloth as the village idiot above. Here is clue number 1, the police cannot "require" a citizen to take a polygraph. What do you do if the officer fails or is inconclusive? It cannot be used in court. Try fighting that one in a wrongful termination suit.

Also, I have many friend's in LE. I have asked each one when they signed a waiver of constitutional rights. Funny, none of them remember ever doing that. It seems that people feel that those in LE have no rights as they, the anti-cop types, claim they want to protect for themselves and the criminals. Interesting hypocracy. Be careful what you ask for. One day you may not have anybody who wants to do the job. Pre-hire? Maybe. You have a choice at that point.

Here is a another statistic for you. Bad apples in the police business account for less than 1/2 of 1% of all sworn officers. That is less than clergy. Are we going to require clergy to take annual polygraphs?

Having worked for an agency for years that DOES do pre employment polygraphs, I later got to know the examiners and see what all they do. A significant portion of these tests are a joke. The examiner excuses himself from a room after asking some hard questions and watches what you are doing from a mirrored window. That pretty much tells me all I need to know right there.

PPBs idiotic hiring practices have excluded some fine people over the years, while letting other nut jobs thru the front door. A young man fired from a govt agency for wearing a tin foil hat comes to mind....who was fired one day from a job and ready to be sworn in at PPB a couple later, passed EVERYTHING, psych, interview, background, wow that all works really well.

Polygraphs are well documented as unreliable. This is a typical knee-jerk reaction to one "bad egg". Fire the guy and convict him of harrassment but polygraphs as a new hire screening tool are poor. Years ago using polygraphs as an employment prescreen were used by convenience stores, etc., but were proven to be unreliable and intrusive.

"...Bad apples in the police business account for less than 1/2 of 1% of all sworn officers." You cite this statistic repeatedly (in other apologist posts) as if it's the gospel truth. Cite your source, please.

I'll bet that statistic is pulled either from (1) a police union funded study, or (2) your ass. I'm inclined to think its the latter.

I bet you wouldn't use the same logic for a sex-offender on parole, sjl4540. Doesn't surprise me since your hypocrisy shines through in about 90% of your posts.

There you go making assumptions again. I don't believe polygraphs are useful for anything.

As I clearly stated before, they make errors in BOTH directions. Just for you, doob, I will explain this very difficult fact very slowly.

doob continues:

Police certainly have NO problem requiring citizens to take polygraphs to determine their culpability, so as shining beacons of upright standards and supreme moral rectitude, why should they have a problem submitting to one themselves?

The police can't require anyone to take a polygraph. Only a moron such as yourself would volunteer and rely upon such inaccurate technology. Perhaps you should do some research before posting. Or are you unable to comprehend the very easy to understand facts.

The innocent recieve false positives and the guilty recieve false negitives. You consider that a good idea.

doob, you are an idiot. One that has great difficulty reading the simplest of statements.

Gees, you guys like to insult. I hope you meet face to face, all of you rude people, and just have it out once and for all. It would leave lots more room for sane and intellectual discussion of an issue. Correcting spelling, give me a break! To my knowledge a person cannot be forced to take a polygraph any more than a breath-aliser or blood test while conscious, not sure about unconscious. I think doctor/ patient confidentiality applies there. I'm not sure that one has reached higher courts yet. Any evidence not in accordance with your Myranda rights can be dismissed as an illegal arrest and will be thrown out. In any event, before any interrogation, even small talk, can be used against you. So it behoves a suspect, (you) to keep you mouth shut until your lawyer arrives. No matter how long it takes him to finish his golf game.

We should start with drug testing all applicants that apply to any division of law enforcement. Since all areas of private industry drug test, it seems absolutely ludicrous that law enforcement is not required to drug test. While we are at it, all officers involved in office involved shootings, or are arrested should also be drug tested at that time. Just like any citizen.